High Tones and Plural Nouns: a Case of Intersecting Markedness Michael Cahill Mike [email protected] 1

High Tones and Plural Nouns: a Case of Intersecting Markedness Michael Cahill Mike Cahill@Sil.Org 1

World Conference on African Linguistics, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco, 25-28 August, 2018

High tones and plural nouns: A case of intersecting markedness Michael Cahill [email protected] 1. Introduction 1 Of 48 languages examined where at least some singular and plural nouns differ solely by tone, 36 consistently raise the tone in some way. Both High tones and plural number are “marked” cross-linguistically. This suggests that in some languages, different domains of markedness might intersect and reinforce each other.

2. The data  Of languages that differentiate at least some singular and plural nouns solely by tone, a clear majority have a higher tone in the plural than in the singular – 36 out of 48 languages examined. (I’ve heard of another 2 that raise tone, but have no actual data yet.) For the current full list, see Appendix. How they raise the tone varies, but at least one syllable is higher in the plural, while the other syllables are either also raised, or identical to the singular.  Five languages lower the tone in plural nouns.  Seven languages are mixed, raising the tone for some plurals, lowering it for others.  Notations: á = High, ā = Mid, à = Low, â = HL Falling, ǎ = LH Rising, a =LM rising, a =MH rising, a= HM falling, a = ML falling

2.1 Examples of raising (1) Ndrulo [led] (Central Sudanic, Uganda) Kutsch Lojenga 2014: 60 vìnì víní his sister/s LL/HH ɗùwnì ɗúwní his son/s djānì djání his father/s ML/HH ɓūwnì ɓúwní his grandfather/s plurals are totally High-toned

(2) Tarok [yer] (Plateau, Nigeria) Longtau 2008: 90–91 ìfàng īfáng fingers/s LL/MH ìnà īnà cow/s LL/ML plurals raise σ1 to Mid ǹtúng n̄túng hyena/s LH/MH ìzūm īzūm rabbit/s LM/MM

1 This project began with consideration of the best way to mark grammatical tones in practical orthographies. Singular and plural nouns are but one example of such. This presentation has benefited from comments at the Linguistic Circle at the University of Colorado, the Metroplex Linguistics Conference (UTA), the Academic Forum at GIAL, Dallas, the 2018 ACAL conference, and has been modified significantly since these. īnòp īnòp sweat-fly ML/ML if σ1 already M, no change īshí īshí head MH/MH

(3) Ipulo [ass] (Tivoid, Cameroon) Tuinstra 2017 ìkjɛ́n íkjɛ́n small/s of back LH/HH ɛ̀kàm ɛ́kâm drum/s LL/HH͡L plurals add H in some way ! éwô éwō dog/s HH͡L/HM (“M” is actually H) ɛ́-nûm ɛ́-num nail/s HH͡L/HH͡M

(4) Koro Waci [bqv] (Plateau, Nigeria) R. Wenger, pc ɪ̀sʊ̄r ɪ́sʊ́r he-goat/s LM/HH /LH, HH/ ɪ̀tɔ̄mɪ̄ ɪ́tɔ́mɪ́ work/s LMM/HHH /LHH, HHH/ ìbur íbur slime/s LL͡M/HH͡M /LLH, HLH/ most plurals ɪ̀ndàg ɪ́ndag cow LL/ HH͡M /LL, HL/ add initial H

(5) Mada [mda] (Plateau, Nigeria) Snider 2007 tsè tsē guineafowl/s L/M tʃə̄ tʃə́ leopard/s M/H plurals raise in some way rɛ̀n rɛ́n pot/s L/H gwǎ gwá snake/s ͡ H/H

(6) Bebe-Jatto [bzv] (Beboid, Cameroon) Hombert 1980:91 ɲà ɲa animal/s L/M͡L ʃìə̀ ʃíə́ fowl/s L/H plurals raise in some way yɔ̄ yɔ́ snake/s M/H

(7) Noni [nhu] (Beboid, Cameroon) Hyman 1981:10-11 jòm jo᷆m antelope L/M͡L bìè bíé fish L/H plurals raise in some way bìē bīē goat LM/M

2.2 Examples of lowering (8) Karaboro [xrb] (Gur, Burkina Faso) Roberts 2013 kāī kāì affair/s gjɔ̀ɔ́ gjɔ́ɔ̀ net/s plurals have Low on last syllable sààpjé sàápjè rabbit/s (result: falling tone - note raising djɛ̀ djɛ̂ year/s before lowering on last example!)

(9) Aringa [luc] (Central Sudanic, Uganda) Angupale pc ágóbí àgōbī man/men HHH/LMM ùkú ùkū woman/women LH/LM most plurals change to Low-Mid

2.3 Examples of mixed raising and lowering (10) Beria [zag] (Nilo-Saharan, Chad/Sudan) Jakobi & Crass 2004 bírī bírì dog HM/HL lowered úrú ūrú bone HH/MH lowered hírí hírî cow HH/HH͡L lowered bɔ̀rʊ̄ bɔ̀rʊ̂ man LM/LH͡L raised bágʊ̄ bāgʊ́ woman HM/MH reversed 10 patterns!

(11) Cheyenne [chy] (Algonquian, USA) Wayne Leman pc hómà’è hòmā’è beaver/s HLL/LML vé’hò’è vé’hó’è whiteman/men HLL/HHL kòòhkóvà’è kòòhkòvā’è quail/s LHLL/LLML mixed, with huge variation

2.4 A more complex situation (12) T'apo [lgn] (Nilo-Saharan, Ethiopia/South Sudan) Smolders pc In the verb system, number is marked by tonal modification (or other processes, depending on the lexeme). This produces plural marking in non-human nominals derived from verb stems. Below, /nà-/ is the nominalizing prefix: kāpā kápá be.red.sg/pl nà-kāpā nà-kápá red.thing.sg/pl

2.5 A note on areal typology It appears that the connection between plural nouns and higher tones is quite common in the Beboid subgroup in Cameroon, the Plateau languages of Nigeria, and not rare in Yemne-Kimbi and Central Sudanic. There are a variety of language families and areas represented in these data. (See Appendix.)

In the preponderance of tone/plurality interactions (75% so far), there is a higher tone for plurality. This may be intuitively what we might expect, but why?

3. Intersection of markedness types

3.1 What is markedness? Though the notion of “markedness” is not universally accepted (e.g. Blevins 2004, Haspelmath 2006, several papers in Samuels 2017), many linguists find it a useful notion. Hume 2011 and Rice 2007 offer recent summaries of the field. Several distinctions are useful to keep in mind.

Typological vs. formal markedness:  Croft (2002) and others talk of typological markedness, inherently comparing tendencies cross-linguistically, whether phonological, morphological, or syntactic. Values of a particular category (here, number and tone) are either typologically marked or unmarked. Asymmetry of relations, and implicational statements can be made.  This contrasts with markedness within a theory of grammar (e.g. structural complexity, Chomsky & Halle 1968, de Lacy 2006). Does not predict cross-linguistic frequency.

Phonological markedness:  Rice (2007:80) lists 19 opposing characteristics for phonological markedness, many of which are more appropriate for segments or segmental features than for tone with its autosegmental nature (e.g. “basic vs. not basic,” “appear in few grammars vs. appear in more grammars”). Haspelmath (2006) also lists a dozen senses of phonological and morphosyntactic markedness. De Lacy (2006:28-31) also lists several diagnostics for markedness that he considers to be valid and several he considers invalid.  It is commonly held that unmarked entities are less salient than marked ones (Rice 2007, Haspelmath 2006, Hume 2003).  Features or structures are often held to be universally marked. However, Hume 2003 maintains that markedness can be language-specific, and illustrates this by studies of PLACE assimilation. Depending on the language, one can assert that either CORONAL, DORSAL, or LABIAL is the unmarked place in that language. It remains a controversy.  Optimality Theory, with variable ranking of constraints (e.g. de Lacy (2006), seems amenable to language-specific markedness. However, if markedness is typological, then this reduces to the statement that “the X ranking is more to be expected than the Y ranking.” (And the OT ranking typology perhaps can produce unnatural and unattested outputs.)

Morphological markedness:  Morphologically, Zwicky (1978) distinguishes material markedness from semantic markedness. Bale et al (2011) call the first one “morphological markedness.”  Inserting extra material into a word, either segments or (I would add) tones, increases its morphological markedness. Ex. lion-ess-es has 2 extra “marks” indicating sex and plurality.  Two words can have degrees of specificity, and the more specified, the more semantically marked it is. Ex. lion-ess, but also horse, mare. Usually morphological and semantic markedness coincide but Bale et al (2011) show that the plural of some nouns is actually semantically unmarked, since it refers to a superset of the singular noun (“Roses are red” is broader than “The rose is red.”).  Pertsova (2015:238) notes that “marked” morphological categories tend to be “cross- linguistically rare, realized by more phonologically complex (e.g., longer) exponents, be optional, follow more idiosyncratic processes, and so on.” She uses a constraint-based model, so “Nominative is less morphologically marked than Genitive, and Singular number is less marked than Plural.” (p.239) Result: a hierarchy of markedness constraints with a fixed ranking: *GEN-PL>>*NOM-PL,*GEN-SG>>*NOM-SG.

3.2 Markedness and high tone  High tones are generally marked in most tone languages (Hyman 2011)  High is more prominent/salient than other tones. (Yip 2002, Cahill 2007, de Lacy 2002)

 Low tones are usually default, epenthetic (Pulleyblank 1986, many individual languages)  Bantu H vs. Ø (e.g. Hyman 2001)  High tones are phonologically active, more than Low tones (e.g. spreading).  H can be required in a word in some languages (Cahill 2007)  Frequency is sometimes a factor (Highs can be less common than Lows) (Rice 2007)

3.3 Markedness and plurals  Adding extra material to a word increases its morphological markedness. (Croft 2004:91)  It is very common for a plural noun to be explicitly indicated with an affix while the singular is unmarked, while the reverse is rare (Greenberg 1966, Croft 2002, Dryer 2013, Haspelmath 2013). Thus, plurals are most commonly the morphologically marked number of a noun.

4. Discussion Bybee (2010: 137) writes: “in current practice, there is no expectation of a correspondence between markedness in phonology and markedness in morphology…” But this is what we find here.  Is there a possible experiential connection exists between plurality and relatively high pitch? o Iconicity: “a tendency for semantic content to be expressed by material form. From such a tendency toward iconicity in morphology, we would expect zero expression of semantically unmarked categories and overt, or nonzero, expression of semantically marked categories.” (Zwicky 1978, Sec. 3.1)  We can talk of salience matching between plurals and High tones. Similar to enhancement features in phonology.  Are there other examples of a match of different types of markedness? Pertsova 2015 talks of interleaving phonological and morphological constraints.  To be investigated: o Is High tone demonstrably marked in the relevant languages? Is Low tone marked in the lowering languages? o What is the markedness of a Mid tone in languages where L  M in a plural? Mid is often considered unmarked, e.g. Akinlabi 1985. Is phonetic salience as important at phonological markedness of tones?

Appendix Noun plurals and tones (listed alphabetically by country) Language [ISO] country All nouns or Description of tone difference, (Family) some? and reference 1. Karaboro [xrb] (Gur) Burkina Faso some LOW at end of plural (falling) Roberts 2013 2. Siamou (Seme) [sif] Burkina Faso some Raising of various sorts (Kru) Prost 1964 3. Babanki [bbk] Cameroon some, class L roots change to H (plural suffix (Narrow Grassfields) 9/10 added) Akumbu & Hyman 2017

4. Bebe-Jatto (Naami) Cameroon class 9/10 Varied kinds of raising [bzv] (Beboid) Hombert 1980 5. Chung (Chungmboko) Cameroon Probably class High in plurals [cug] (Beboid) 9/10? Shang et al 2012 6. Kemedzung [dmo] Cameroon class 9/10 Higher pitch for plurals (Beboid) Cox 2005 7. Mekaf (Naki) [mff] Cameroon class 9/10 Varied kinds of raising (Beboid) Hombert 1980 8. Ncane [ncr] (Beboid) Cameroon class 9/10 all Plurals are ‘relatively high’ incl. Mungong Boutwell 2015 9. Noni [nhu] (Beboid) Cameroon class 9/10 Varied kinds of raising Hyman 1981, Hombert 1980 10. Sari [asj] (Beboid) Cameroon class 9/10 Varied kinds of raising Hombert 1980 11. Ajumbu [muc] (Yemne- Cameroon class 9/10 High on plural Kimbi) Good et al 2011 12. Bu (Mundabli) [boe] Cameroon class 9/10 Varied kinds of raising (Yemne-Kimbi) Hombert 1980, Voll dissertation 13. Fang [fak] (Yemne- Cameroon class 9/10 High on plural Farrar & Kimbi) Good 2008, Good et al 2011 14. Koshin [kid] (Yemne- Cameroon class 9/10 Higher on plural Kimbi) Hombert 1980 15. Mungbam [mij] Cameroon class 9/10 ì-/í- prefixes remain, but stem tones (Yemne-Kimbi) irregularly higher. Lovegren 2013:123 16. Esimbi [ags] (Tivoid) Cameroon A few of class Higher in plurals 1/2 , all of 9/10 Stallcup 1980 17. Iceve-Maci [bec] Cameroon class 9/10 1st syllable raised (prefix, broader (Tivoid) than 9/10), Cox 2013 18. Ipulo [ass] (Tivoid) Cameroon class 9/10 High added on plural Tuinstra 2017 19. Mfumte [nfu] Cameroon all HIGH, but only when in a NP (Narrow Grassfields) McLean 2014 20. Ronga~Rounga [rou] Chad, CAR “certain nouns” Assign H tone (NILO-SAHARAN) Nougayrol 1989 21. Beria (Zaghawa) [zag] Chad/Sudan Almost all Very MIXED, may be phrasal (NILO-SAHARAN) Jakobi & Crass 2004, Wolfe pc 22. Ngiti [niy] (Central DRC Some, esp. Have H Sudanic) human Kutsch Lojenga 1994 23. Mamvu [mdi] DRC some MIXED (Central Sudanic) Vorbichler 1971: 222-223 24. T'apo (Opuuo [lgn]) Ethiopia and Non-human Nouns derived from verb stems (Nilo-Saharan) South Sudan nominals M (sg)  H (pl), Smolders pc

25. Berom [bom] (Plateau) Nigeria Some/most Most change to all High Blench 2006a 26. Cara [cfd] (Plateau) Nigeria Many Raising Blench 2012 27. Eda (Adara) [kad] Nigeria Almost all Most L  M on first syllable, a (Plateau) very few M  L, Harley pc 28. Gworok [kcg], a Tyap Nigeria A few Raising dialect (Plateau) (Follingstad) Follingstad 1991, Rowbory pc 29. Gyong [kdm] (Plateau) Nigeria All nouns First tone typically raised to H Harley pc 30. Iten [etx] (Plateau) Nigeria Some nouns Raising Blench 2006b 31. Izere [izr] (Plateau) Nigeria Some nouns Raising of at least first syllable Blench 2000 32. Koro Waci [bqv] Nigeria Most nouns All nouns in the most common (Plateau) gender add initial High, Wenger pc 33. Kuce [ruk] (Plateau) Nigeria Most nouns Raising of first syllable Starwalt pc 34. Kulu (Ikulu) [ikl] Nigeria Some nouns Raising either prefix or stem (Plateau) Blench 2006c 35. Mada [mda] (Plateau) Nigeria Many nouns Raising (~80%) Snider 2007 36. Nikyob [kdp] (Plateau) Nigeria Majority of Raising, a few exceptions nouns Kempton pc 37. Rigwe [iri] (Plateau) Nigeria Some, Class IV Raising - extra-low prefix raised to mid, extra-low stem becomes falling Blench to appear 38. Tarok [yer] (Plateau) Nigeria Some nouns, L  M on 1st syllable prefix 3/4 and 5/6 Longtau 2008 39. Lis ma Ron [cla] Nigeria A few MIXED (Chadic) Seibert 1998 40. Dinka [din] (Nilo- S. Sudan Some nouns MIXED – very! Saharan) Ladd et al 2009 41. Moru [mgd] (Central S. Sudan A few nouns LOW on plural Sudanic) Tucker 1940 42. Gbaya [krs] (Central S. Sudan Some nouns (1 Higher on plural Sudanic) listed) Santandrea 1976 43. Shilluk [shk] (Eastern S. Sudan Some nouns MIXED Westermann 1912, Gilley Sudanic) 1992, 2004 44. Ndrulo [led] (Central Uganda Some nouns, Plural is ALL High tones Sudanic) [+human] Kutsch Lojenga 2014 45. Ma’di [mhi] (Central Uganda Very few Mixed Sudanic) Kilpatrick 2004, William pc 46. Aringa [luc] (Central Uganda Few, human LOWER (LM generally) Sudanic) Kilpatrick 2004, Angupale pc

47. Logbara [lgg] (Central Uganda kinship LOWER on plurals Sudanic) Crazzolara 1960 48. Cheyenne [chy] USA some MIXED – seemingly random (Algonquian) Leman pc

References Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1985. Tonal underspecification and Yorùbá tone. Ph.D. dissertation University of Ibadan. Akumbu, Pius W. & Larry M. Hyman, 2017. Nasals and Low Tone in Grassfields Noun Class Prefixes. Nordic Journal of African Studies 26.1:1–13. Bale, Alan, Gagnon, Michael & Khanjian, Hrayr. 2011. On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness; The case of plural morphology. Morphology 21: 197–221. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d1a/a4616000ca10bdf9b718a04e40fa5d65b57a.pdf Blench, Roger M. 2000b. Transitions in Izere nominal morphology and implications for the analysis of Plateau languages. In Antje Meissner and Anne Storch (eds.), Nominal Classification in African Languages. Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 12. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Blench, Roger. 2006a. Nominal morphology chaos in Plateau languages: trees versus networks. Unpublished paper. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Niger- Congo/BC/Plateau/General/Nominal%20class%20chaos.pdf Blench, Roger. 2006b. Comparative Beromic. Unpublished paper. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Niger- Congo/BC/Plateau/Beromic/Comparative%20Beromic.pdf Blench. Roger. 2006c. The Kulu language of Central Nigeria and its affinities. Unpublished paper. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Niger-Congo/BC/Plateau/Northwest/Kulu%20wordlist.pdf Blench, Roger. 2012. The Cara language of Central Nigeria and its affinities. Unpublished paper. http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Niger-Congo/BC/Plateau/Beromic/Cara%20wordlist.pdf Blench, Roger M. To appear. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutoinary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boutwell, Richard. 2015. A First Look at Tone in the Ncane Noun Phrase. SIL Cameroon: www.silcam.org/download.php?sstid=030401&folder=documents&file=ncr_NchaneGrammarSketch_2 010.rb.finalx.pdf Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Markedness: Iconicity, Economy, and Frequency. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Pp 131-147. Cahill, Michael. 2007. More Universals of Tone. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2007-007. http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/7816. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Cox, Bruce. 2005. Notes on the Phonology of Kemezung. ms, SIL Cameroon. Available online at http://www.sil.org/africa/cameroun/index.html. Cox, Bruce. 2013. A Phonological Overview of Iceve-Maci. ms, SIL Cameroon. Available online at http://www.sil.org/africa/cameroun/index.html. Crazzolara, J.P. 1960. A Study of the Logbara (Ma’di) Language: Grammar and Vocabulary. London: Oxford University Press. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The Interaction of Tone and Stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19.1:1–32. de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Coding of Nominal Plurality. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online http://wals.info/chapter/33, Accessed 2017-07-21.)

Farrar, Scott, and Jeff Good. 2008. Western Beboid and African language classification. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the LSA, Chicago, January 6, 2008. Follingstad, Alison J. 1991. Aspects of Tyap Syntax. M.A. Thesis, University of Texas-Arlington. Gilley, Leoma. 1992. An Autosegmental Approach to Shilluk Phonology. Publications in Linguistics 103. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. Gilley, Leoma. 2004. Morphophonemic Orthographies in Fusional Languages: The Cases of Dinka and Shilluk. Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum and SIL International.1–13. Reprinted in SIL Electronic Working Papers 2004-003. https://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/7859 Good, Jeff, Jesse Lovegren, Jean Patrick Mve, Carine Nganguep Tchiemouo, Rebecca Voll, and Pierpaolo Di Carlo. 2011. The languages of the lower Fungom region of Cameroon: Grammatical overview. Africana Linguistica 17: 101–164. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Janua Linguarum, 59, Mouton. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42.1: 25– 70. https://www.academia.edu/3452962/Against_markedness_and_what_to_replace_it_with_ Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Occurrence of Nominal Plurality. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online http://wals.info/chapter/34, Accessed 2018-03-14.) Hombert, Jean-Marie. 1980. Noun classes of the Beboid languages. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Noun classes in the grassfields Bantu borderland. SCOPIL No. 8. Pp. 83–98. Hume, Elizabeth. 2003. Language specific markedness: The case of place of articulation. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 9.2: 295–310. Hume, Elizabeth. 2011. Markedness. In van Oostendorp, Mark, Colin J. Ewin, Elizabeth Hume, & Keren Rice (eds). The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. I, Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 79-106. Hume, Elizabeth, and Georgios Tserdanelis. 2002. Labial Unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19.3: 441–58. Hyman, Larry M. 1981. Noni grammatical structure. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 9. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. Hyman, Larry M. 2001. Privative Tone in Bantu. In Kaji, Shigeki (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Tonogenesis, Japanese Accentology, and Other Topics. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, pp. 237–257. Hyman, Larry M. 2011. Markedness, Faithfulness, and the Typology of Two-height Tone Systems. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Reports, 7(7). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/19h6t4nn Jakobi, Angelika, and Joachim Crass. 2004. Grammaire du beria: langue saharienne. (Nilo-Saharan: Linguistic Analysis and Documentation 18). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: a Central Sudanic Language of Zaire. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 2014. “Orthography and tone: A tone-system typology with implications for orthography development.” In Developing Orthographies for Unwritten Languages, edited by Cahill, Michael & Rice, Keren, 49–72. Dallas: SIL International. Ladd, D. Robert, Bert Remijsen, and Caguor Adong Manyang. 2009. On the distinction between regular and irregular inflectional morphology: Evidence from Dinka. Language, 85(3): 659– 670. Complete dataset at http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/nilotic/nounnumber_dataset.pdf . Longtau, Selbut R. 2008. The Tarok language: Its basic principles and grammar. Jos, Nigeria: Development Research, Alternatives, and Training (DART). Lovegren, Jesse. 2013. Mungbam grammar. State University of New York at Buffalo Ph.D. dissertation. McLean, Greg L. 2014. A Sketch Grammar of the Central Mfumte Language. Ms, SIL Cameroon, http://www.silcam.org/download.php?sstid=030401&folder=documents&file=CentralMfumteGrammar SketchFINALJUNE242014.pdf Nougayrol, Pierre. 1989. La language des Aiki dits Rounga. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geunthner.

Pertsova, Katya. 2015. Interaction of morphological and phonological markedness in Russian genitive plural allomorphy. Morphology 25: 229–266. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11525-015-9256-1 Prost, R. P. A. 1964. Contribution à l'Étude des langues voltaiques. (Memoires de l'Institut Français d'Afrique Noire, 70.) Dakar: Institut Français d’Afrique Noire (IFAN). Pp. 345–381. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986. Tone in Lexical Phonology, Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Rice, Keren. 2007. Markedness in Phonology. In Paul de Lacy (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. 79–97, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, Dave. 2013. A tone orthography typology. In Borgwaldt, S. R. & Joyce, T. (eds.), Typology of writing systems, 85–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Samuels, Bridget D. (ed.). 2017. Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (Book 241) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Santandrea, Stefano. 1976. The Kresh Group, Aja and Baka Languages (Sudan). Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Seibert, Uwe. 1998. Das Ron von Daffo (Jos-Plateau, Zentralnigeria): Morphologische, Syntaktische und Textlinguistische Strukturen einer Westtschadischen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Snider, Keith. 2007. The Effect of Floating Tones on the Diminutive Consonant in Mada (Nigeria). Paper presented at 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 22–25, 2007. Stallcup, Kenneth L. 1980. Noun classes in Esimbi. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Noun classes in the grassfields Bantu borderland. SCOPIL No. 8. Pp. 139–154. Tucker, A.N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic Languages. Volume I. International Institute of African Languages and Cultures. London: Oxford University Press. Tuinstra, Anna. 2017. Revising the Ipulo orthography: Linguistic analysis with an emphasis on tone marking. M.A. Thesis, Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. Voll, Rebecca. 2017. A grammar of Mundabli: A Bantoid (Yemne-Kimbi) language of Cameroon. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University, downloadable at https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/471_fulltext.pdf Westermann, Diedrich. 1912. A Short Grammar of the Shilluk Language. Philadelphia : The Board of Foreign Missions of the United Presbyterian Church of North America. Yip, Moira. 2002. Tone. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zwicky, Arnold. 1978. On Markedness in Morphology. Die Sprache 24.2: 22–27. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/on-markedness.pdf